Why do we want to move out of Barkheda (Sreejan)?

Sreejan was an idea of an intentional community. The common intention simply put can be ‘living in harmony with nature’. There was sufficient land, money and expertise to begin with. With our coming in about a year back, the community started off. We were welcomed, appreciated and encouraged since we were the only family willing to live in.

As time passed, we realized that a person with an only an idea (of living in harmony with nature) is vastly different from a person who is actually living the idea. The person with only ideas has a number of ideas and theories & models to implement the ideas. Ideas about sustainability, organic farming, non-exploitation, zero carbon footprint, eco-friendly construction, food miles and so on and so forth. He gets very excited with any news on these subjects, newer ways of communicating the same concepts, new people (whom he calls like-minded) and he wastes no time in sharing the excitement over e-mail, in workshops and in discussions. He almost always has a lot to discuss and share. In almost all cases, he has plans to live the ideas after 4-5 years or he has reasons why he cannot live them now. For eg. Wife does not agree or he has to wait till he’s fulfilled his responsibility towards his children, or he has started to move in the direction, but a sudden shift may be unadvisable, etc.  This person is a true believer in the idea, but also believes that it is very difficult to execute the idea.

Essentially, there were three persons (of whom one was a couple) apart from the two of us, who were invested in Sreejan. It would be incorrect to call them (founders of Sreejan) people with only ideas. They had taken action, but their action was aimed at someone else living their ideas. Since we were the only resident of the community, we realized that we were looked upon to live their ideas.

It was a triangular relationship. In our relationship with the couple, we sensed that they might have thought that we’re morally obligated to live their ideas, since they had taken the action of making the basic infrastructure available. Also, they were owners of the land. I’d opted not to buy land because there was over 100 acre land available and no one to live in it. Adding my one acre would not have made any material difference to the community and money would have only got wasted. Instead, I donated Rs. one lac to the society. Despite this, I could sense that the relationship was tilted. We were probably seen as beneficiaries, thereby making us morally obligated to reciprocate. Though it wasn’t explicitly stated, we could sense this in a few interactions. We warded off the expectations, which may have annoyed them. Not because we were not interested in the activities, but because we could sense a complete dissonance in the ideas and the actions. People managing common resources of Sreejan were expected to be personal servants, serving them water and tea, cooking food for them, house-keeping their rooms. Most people had to bear with their ill-temper. They were very kind to us and helped us in a big way getting settled. But we found it difficult to subordinate our living to their ideas & expectations.

The other relationship involved a better understanding of our idea of living at Barkheda. But the shelf life of the ideas was too short. This resulted in a complete dissonance between theory and practice. When we first interacted with him, he said that decision making or governance model in Sreejan will be based on the level of consciousness of people rather than a democracy, consensus or strength of voice/logic. We were told that it was agreed that the level of consciousness of a person, who lives on the land is higher than one not living on the land. Quite a remarkable theory! But, during one interaction, we found ourselves begging against a decision, which would threaten access to life essentials like water and electricity. We were the only family living on the land and the decision taken was not in our favour. It is amusing to notice how easily people walk against their own talk. Castles of ideas can be built to dizzying heights.

Another instance of a castle of idea: With some fantastic display of commitment, some land-owners agreed to contribute their land to Sreejan. It was agreed that this understanding does not need to be made legally binding since it involves unnecessary cost. The word of the owners should be sufficient. But, it did not take any thought for some of them to withdraw part of the contribution and later to dissolve Sreejan, withdraw all land contribution and leave the lone resident family stranded.

“Being brave does not mean that you go looking for trouble.” I was reminded of this dialogue from the movie Lion King. We realized that we were on shaky ground and we need to accept the fact that land ownership is critical. Buying land in Barkheda seems quite inappropriate in the wake of the circumstances and considering the availability of life essentials.

The Search for a New Place to live in (2)

It has been and is continuing to be quite an experience searching for a new place. The parameters for the decision are as under. Many of these are additions during the course of the search.

1.       Physical Characteristics of the land / region

Availability of state electricity, an identified source of water for farm use and dug well for drinking & cooking, reasonable road access, good soil fertility, equable climate, 700-2000mm annual rainfall, between half a km to 2km distance from the nearest habitation are some critical requirements.

2.       Local Community

Our priorities, our thinking, our socio-economic background is different from a typical rural community as well as a typical urban or metro community. The gap is so much that we belong to neither. There are however quite a few areas of common interest with both communities. What is needed is that we respect their diversity and earn the respect for ours. This requires that we talk their language and also listen to them. We’ll need to judge this aspect subjectively and assess our comfort level with the local community.

3.       Suitability for Learning and upbringing of children

Our children need the company of other children at least till 10 years of age. The place should have an opportunity for them to learn some art / skill in a dedicated manner (music, dance, martial arts and the like).

4.       Proximity to a ‘good’ city

The nearest city should be within an hour or two. The requirement has been added recently. The option to receive and to provide professional service and the need for urban company are the reasons for this requirement.

5.       Financial Considerations

We’ve yet not tampered with any of our capital assets and I don’t yet see the reason to do so. Purchase of land is an expense (not an investment) for me. Lower the better.

We’ve so far explored rural areas near Palakkad, Wayanad, Mysore, Hubli, Satara and Amravati. We have identified land options only at Mysore and Amravati. We don’t have any connections in the other areas to search for land. Also, they don’t score high on the parameters for selection. As of now, Mysore scores reasonably high on all parameters, though there are some disadvantages. I realized that in decision making, one can take decisions only after taking it for granted that the best option is unavailable and one has to choose the second best. The big flip side in searching for the best option is that time keeps running. 

What are we really upto?

Time and again, questions keep popping up (from within and outside) as to what are we really up to? Are we running away from city, development, people? Are we trying to prove something? Who are our ideals?

These are not very easy questions to answer and we need to keep answering them and refining our answers, more for ourselves than for others. I’m making a beginning below.

We’d like to lead a simple life. Simplicity, however, does not mean that we consume bland food, wear whites or travel third class. Simplicity does not mean compromising. Simplicity is to live without complicating life. Simplicity can be achieved and enhanced by straightforward thinking, by being conscious of the complex and vicious circles we tend to get entangled in trying to allay fears, satisfy greed, increase conveniences or feed egos.

We’ll refrain from exploiting natural resources, including human beings. Eco-friendly house, low carbon foot-print, pleasant interpersonal relationships are important, but there is no hardline fundamentalism to maintain them. Using or consuming natural resources is imperative, but we need to be conscious of not getting into the arena of exploitation.

Having fun is very important for us. There is however, a thin line between enjoyment and (sensory) pleasure and we’d like to be conscious of this line.

We’d like to move towards self sufficiency of food. It appears to be a longish journey and I’m not bent upon being completely self-sufficient in food. What I’m particular about is that we should reach a stage, where we don’t need to buy food against money. We should be able to barter excess food, which we can grow (given our ability and suitability of geography) for other items, which we can’t or would not like to.

Trading is necessary and so are norms in trading. Interdependence is inevitable and also desirable. Being dependent upon the skills and gifts of others makes me humble and grateful. This humility causes me to provide my skills to others with a sense of service. It also makes me grateful as a service provider as well. It helps me see how I can improve my service. Trading is thus a cyclical process of receiving with gratefulness and serving with humility.

Unfortunately, has become a part of our being as a race to compare our skills & gifts. The value of the skill is arrived at on the basis of scarcity of the skill / gift. A manual farm labour is valued far less than a doctor because doctors are scarce. Value is also arrived at on the basis of how badly the service is required. Consequently, a pyramid structure is created in a society. The most scarce service providers whose services are in high demand are at the top, viewed as more valuable than the rest.  This is probably the root cause of exploitation. We’d like to be conscious about this as we live interdependently. This is very much relevant for interdependence within family members.

We may end up making our life seem inconvenient. We may also end up getting inferior results than what we’d have if we were to continue with our earlier life. But we refuse to be judged or be compared with someone who isn’t living the life we are.